Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Today is the Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time.

For several weeks, I've gone to wordonfire.org to listen to Father Robert Barron's homilies......the link for today's homily can be found here.
Msgr. Charles Pope's homily on the same Gospel reading can be found on this blog.

I may not be a great writer but I can be a pretty good listener and reader. Father Barron and Msgr. Pope do a much better job than I can ever do. Linking to their homilies is the least I can do.

Man gives $200K to fake Online Girlfriend.

From UPI.com: Man gave $200K to fake online girlfriend.

NAPERVILLE, Ill., Feb. 25 (UPI) -- Police in Illinois said a man "was in disbelief" when officers told him the online girlfriend to whom he had given $200,000 was not a real person.

Naperville police said the 48-year-old man called investigators Wednesday to say he believed the woman, with whom he had been involved in a 2 1/2-year online relationship, had been kidnapped in London, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Friday.

The man told police he had wired $200,000 to the woman during the relationship to different bank accounts in Nigeria, Malaysia, England and the United States.

Investigators said the ID card the woman showed the man was a sample driver's license from Florida.

The man "was in disbelief" when officers told him the woman was not real, police said.

Obviously, the poor fellow hasn't read my blog. If he had read my eleven part series on scammer Kelvin Williams he may not have fallen for the scam.

Rhymes with Coffee.

According to an article from abcnews , the name of the leader of Libya can be translated into English from Arabic 112 ways. Personally, I'm particle to using Muammar Kadhafi.

While I may not be 100% certain as to how we should spell the name, I'm fairly sure of the correct pronunciation - it rhymes with coffee, right? .....ironic, since it appears that Kadhafi may have been drinking a bit too much of the drink lately.

An AP story - which prefers Moammar Gadhafi, incidentally - says Kadhfi is blaming the unrest in his country on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida who have been putting hallucinogenic pills in the coffee of young Libyans.

Had Kadhafi read my blog, he would have learned from my post in January, 2009 that Too Much Coffee Causes Hallucinations. Can't imagine what would happen if hallucinagines were added.

Rioting, I guess.

SMOKE ON THE MOUNTAIN.........

An Interpretation of the Ten Commandments In Terms of Today

by Joy Davidman

Yesterday,I discovered a copy of Davidman's book online.

Written in the 1950's, portions of the book are,obviously,dated. However, for the most part, the book is surprisingly relevant today. Times may have changed, but people haven't.

The book reads quickly and is, I believe, worth the time.

An Early Look at 2012.

Now that President Obama has recently "reaffirmed his Christian faith in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington", I suppose the 2012 Presidential campaign is officially underway. It's time to begin giving serious consideration to finding a candidate who I can support in a run against the President.

On her blog, Linda Grass says that she had her ".... wake-up moment about Sarah Palin when she endorsed Rand Paul who also supports the morning after pill, is not fully behind the federal partial-birth abortion ban and even committed fraud against Kentucky Right to Life by turning over a forged document when they did not endorse him over pro-lifer Trey Grayson".

I've been uneasy over Palin for quite some time and like Graas, I certainly couldn't support any candidate who goes against Catholic teaching regarding abortion. ( By Catholic teaching I mean authentic Catholic teaching, not Catholic teaching as interpreted by cafeteria Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry ). Graas suggests that social Conservatives get behind "Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich….or some other social conservative for President".

Good idea.

I'm not ready to comment on Bachman or Pawlenty yet. True, I've only heard positive things about the two from fellow Conservatives; still, I'd rather look further before voting for either. There's no way I can support Huckabee. His stirring up of anti-Mormon prejudice among fundamentalist Christians towards Romney in 2008 removes him from my list of Presidential candidates (unless, of course, it came down to choosing Huckabee or Obama - then, I'd have to hold my nose and pick the Huckster).

This leaves Newt. From a strictly political perspective, Newt would win my vote, hands down. However, his history of multiple marriages, divorces and adultery is problematic. In his favor, Gingrich has converted to Catholicism. If his conversion is authentic, then I'd have no problem casting a vote for him. Being able to forgive is part of what we as Christians are called to do. If he's truly turned over a new leaf, then he has my support. With Newt's natural inclination for smaller government and the Church's teaching on subsidiarity, we might be able to turn this country around.

It's impossible to know what is inside someone's heart, but I'm willing to give Gingrich the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

Is it always a Sin to Tell a Lie?

If I was earning money from this blog, it would appear that I'd have to turn over a portion of my earnings to LarryD ......I can't seem to come up with any ideas of my own - I have to reference something I've found on his blog. Last week it was my post Wowee Zowee Malawi which came about as a result of Larry's post on the country.

The subject of today's post comes from a link I found on Larry's post, Various and Sundry Sunday which leads to a post by a blogger calling himself Reginaldus. As I mentioned in my post Ujiosama Rides Again, I try to stay away from blogs written anonymously - and with the scant amount of information he provides in his profile - I'd say Reginaldus fits the bill; but, I found the subject of his post It is a sin to lie, even to Planned Parenthood interesting enough to make an exception.

In his piece, Reginaldus argues that members of the pro-life group Live Action were guilty of the sin of lying when the group secretly video taped events in Planned Parenthood centers recently. In these videos, we see Live Action members posing as pimps and prostitutes while conducting a "sting" operation in an attempt to expose the unsavory practices of some Planned Parenthood employees. The Reader's Digest condensed version of his argument is that the Live Action members lied, deceived the Planned Parenthood staffers, lying is a sin and the end does not justify the means.

Reginaldus mentions a story of a man hiding Jews in his attic during the reign of the Nazis in Germany. The Nazis come to his house and ask the question, “Are there Jews hidden in your attic?” Reginaldus believes that telling the Nazis "No" would be "......a sin against the Nazis, against the German people as a whole, and against God – it is a direct offense against the truth."

Later, a blogger named Stacy left this comment;

"I read this post and thought about it a long time. I wrote about it at my blog, Accepting Abundance. If you go there you'll see I'm a convert and a mother. If I'm honest, I have to admit that if my child were in imminent danger from an unjust aggressor I would definitely lie to protect him before I would utter the words that would assure his harm or murder. I can't help it, that's the truth. Why would that be wrong? Aren't parents supposed to protect their children? This is very confusing."

whereupon Reginaldus replied,

"I left a comment over at your blog.
Here I will only say that we have to protect our children IN THE TRUTH. Your work as a mother is a cooperation in the divine plan -- but to lie is to participate in the work of Satan.
What good would it do to gain the whole world (and save a child's life), if only to lose one's soul in the process?"

Here is where that particular argument breaks down for me. Concerning the killing of someone in self defense, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says at 2264 and 2265:

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

So, my question is this - if, under certain circumstances, such as when protecting an innocent child's life against an aggressor, one can kill the aggressor, why then would lying to the aggressor for the same reason be a sin?